Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 13(2)

Supreme Court overturns conviction in corruption case due to lack of demand evidence: Mukhtiar Singh vs. State of Punjab (2017)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Prevention of Corruption Act Case Name: Mukhtiar Singh (Since Deceased) Through His L.R. vs. State of Punjab Judgment Date: 14 July 2017 Date of the Judgment: […]

Supreme Court overturns conviction in corruption case due to lack of demand evidence: Mukhtiar Singh vs. State of Punjab (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Bribery Case: State of A.P. vs. P. Satyanarayana Murthy (2008)

Introduction Date of the Judgment: October 3, 2008 Citation: [INSC Citation to be added when available] Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J., P. Sathasivam, J., Aftab Alam, J. Can a High Court overturn a trial court’s conviction based on a differing view of evidence when a public servant is caught red-handed accepting a bribe? The Supreme

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Bribery Case: State of A.P. vs. P. Satyanarayana Murthy (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of ‘Public Servant’ under the Prevention of Corruption Act: State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh (2008)

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 22, 2008 Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.M. Panchal Does an employee of a cooperative bank, which receives financial aid from the State Government, fall within the definition of a “public servant” under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? This question was central to an appeal before the Supreme Court

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of ‘Public Servant’ under the Prevention of Corruption Act: State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh (2008) Read Post »

Scroll to Top